Moesker

I will fight anyone on the notion that any movie 'should not be made'. And I completely agree with you about not watching something if it isn't your cup of tea. But you have to admit its Christian groups that are usually the ones protesting certain movies, television shows, albums, books, etc. because they don't like the content.

What other movements should we allow on campus to distribute their literature 'upon request'? It's a travesty that they don't have Husker coloring books featuring Lil' Red. A TRAVESTY!! I am all for Husker coloring books in schools across the nation but the true travesty is that lil' Red exists.

What other movements should we allow on campus to distribute their literature 'upon request'?

The teachings of Satanism aren't evil. You are being confused by the representation of Satan from the bible with the actual Satanic religion. If you looked into it with an open mind you would see this. This is not an endorsement of Satanism, just recognizing that there is some good philosophy in it...just as there is in the New Testament of the bible.

"God is not dead" movies are just another chance for some Christians to promote the false narrative that Christians are persecuted in this country. That said, the possibility of offending someone is never a reason not to make a movie. I don't know of any atheists that were offended by the movie...only amused.

Have you even looked into LaVey Satanism? There is a lot of good philosophy in there just as there is in the New Testament. And its much more level headed than the ridiculous Old Testament. But in the end, its just another attempt of a few trying to tell the many how to live their lives. I am guessing you are just making uneducated assumptions. But if we are talking value, then Dr. Suess is probably ahead of all religious philosophies.

This. A million times this.

Is it also then the duty of a Christian to prove the thousands of other Gods in history as fiction? Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. 9/11 truthers don't need to be proven wrong as well...do they? A homeless man walking down the street proclaiming that he is Jesus at the top of his lungs needs a little more evidence does he not? Or does he have to be proven wrong?

Yep. I would consider myself an empiricist, a rationalist, a skeptic and a materialist, while also a person who tries to follow Jesus, who believes in the resurrection and believes in Yahweh the Father as Creator still being active in this world. I don't think this is irrational, it's just hard to put into a neat little categorical box that humans like to group things into, and it requires a certain kind of surrender that certain elements of what I believe are mostly experiential and can't be falsified or tested in a lab. Do you believe those who think your belief is irrational are themselves irrational? Can't it simply be a difference of opinion?

I made the mistake of pressing the "view it anyway" buttons on Moesker and Red Dead Retreads comments. They always put me in a bad mood. I will be sure to never make that mistake again. Yeah, its tough when those on the other side of the argument are as condescending as you are. But at least you have the advantage of your point of views condescension being embraced as fighting for your faith while mine is simply being a "dick" as you put it even though it is the same type of arguing. This really doesn't benefit anyone, and is best left to the Shed. Maybe not but its true. There is a double standard in play here.

I made the mistake of pressing the "view it anyway" buttons on Moesker and Red Dead Retreads comments. They always put me in a bad mood. I will be sure to never make that mistake again. Yeah, its tough when those on the other side of the argument are as condescending as you are. But at least you have the advantage of your point of views condescension being embraced as fighting for your faith while mine is simply being a "dick" as you put it even though it is the same type of arguing.

I have been on record as saying that both concepts are hard to wrap my head around. But just because I don't understand it, it doesn't mean it couldn't happen. Thats true for a supreme being and yes, it is also true for theories such as the Big Bang. But allowing the possibility that there is a God that created everything we know is much different than believing in a specific God that man has created...or thousands of them.

Antenna kisser.

Nah. Just didn't grow up with it. It's a tradition (or lack there of) we tend to inherit from our parents. Nothing against those who did; we are nothing if not bound by social and cultural traditions. It's really not that empty or different over here, though. We're living in the same world; that is, with each other.[/size] I probably shouldn't have said "most". "Many" would have been more appropriate. I realize that many others simply were not exposed to it or brought up in a household of belief. I'm sure there are almost limitless reasons or circumstances that lead to all our belief differences. But a very common one I have seen is with people who did believe at one time and later became angry with God. Can't say I blame many of them either. Some people have experienced some indescribably bad things that would likely drive the strongest of us away from the faith. And yet others, these very bad experiences strengthened their faith. Some friends of ours lost a teenage daughter to a brain tumor. Terribly sad tragedy. Personally, I don't think I could have dealt with it but their faith helped them through it and has not driven them away from it. I never had one bad moment at church. No pedophile pastors or corrupt church officials to speak of. I just did my own study of the bible when I had the opportunity and drew my own conclusions.

Interesting that you'd make that statement. Which would be more difficult to create from scratch, a brass watch or the bed of clovers that it is lying on? Given enough time and the right machinery I could make a brass watch. But all the world's resources and intelligence working for a decade could not create one single, reproducing clover plant. Right. We're saying the watch has a creator, because we can replicate its creation. We can't make that argument with the clover. We can't replicate billions of years of natural selection in a decade. Wait, wut? I no understand your logic. If we know something as simple as a pocket watch has a creator, wouldn't something as incredibly complex as all the biological systems on earth be even more likely to have a creator? No. The reasons we know the watch had an intelligent designer can't be applied to the clover. Assuming the complexity of life on earth is the product of an intelligent designer fails to account for alternate explanations. Darwin had a better explanation. Why do people who do not believe in God always insist that evolution precludes the possibility of God? I don't think the concept of evolution is incompatible with God. I don't either. Why do believers always paint non-believers with such a wifde brush...especially when there are far more anti-evolution people who are believers?

Probably going to have to let this one go. You're apparently unwilling or unable to look at it in the same manner that I do. I'm not hedging my bet. If anything, I am hedging the bet for other people. I know for a fact that God was the cause. Don't ask me to prove it or explain it any further. It is a deeply held belief of mine based on my cumulative experiences. You just contradicted yourself. Is it a fact or a belief? You might tell yourself its a fact but in reality, its just your opinion or faith. I would never be arogant enough to say its a fact there is no higher power. Saying there is one, is just as arrogant.

Without a doubt, the law of averages dictates that there are many millions of other civilizations out there, many far more advanced than ours. As for one coming to earth and throwing us a bone, I just hope they are more cordial than what our country's settlers were to the people they encountered. And just think of how many different versions of God are out there in the cosmos.

I think any religion could find a way to make all of this fit with their scripture. The Book of Genesis wasn't written last week and made to fit what science says. Moses wrote it at a time when nearly every person was illiterate and written language was relatively new. One could almost say science came along 3900 years later and copied the 1st Chapter of Genesis. Perhaps the two religions....science and faith can arrive at the same point some time in the future. Yes, science copied the book of Genesis.

OOH! OOH! Teacher, pick me! I see what you did there -- you contradicted yourself again. You admitted to pressing the easy button, then changed your mind and said others are pressing the easy button, even though I'm not sure anyone else said that's what they are doing. I find it funny when believers admit they are taking the easier path, then accuse others of it.Pretty sure i said it isnt easier. Reading comprehension is a bitch. And yes, if others say believing is easier i say bs, theres nothing easy about faith which you are helping us, believers, prove.Pretty sure I never suggested it was you that said it was easier -- that's why I included the other quotes. Understanding third party references in conversations can be a bitch, as can labelling others via pronouns. Please try to keep up.Please re-read my original post and tell me where i said it was easier for people to believe in God. Get back to me. It says straight out its harder to believe than not believe. I said its funny when NON-BELIEVERS say its easier. Imo of course. But let me know what im missing that you so clearly are stating I said. As one who has been both a believer and non-believer...neither are particularly hard.

I think any religion could find a way to make all of this fit with their scripture.

It would be silly to think otherwise. Its human nature to search for answers.

Help me out NUance, how is the needling just going in one direction. I think your persecution complex is showing. I think he meant "noodling", because that would be a sign from the true god, FSM RAmen.

Oh but Moe, didn't you have fun in this thread arguing with people and needling other posters? So I guess we can shut down this thread now that we've settled the issue that there actually is a God and He was behind the Big Bang and 2.5 billion years of evolution on earth to create mankind and all manners of life on earth. If you believe and study the bible (like I do) then you have to know that God is indeed jealous. In fact, that's the first of the 10 Commandments: Thou shall have no other gods before Me. Actually, nothing has been settled from this. Do you really think any new ground has been broken here because of this? Many Christians have afforded the possibility that creationism and evolution can co-exist. And yes, we know the Christian God is jealous, but is the true God? You had better hope not if you have made the wrong choice. Help me out NUance, how is the needling just going in one direction. I think your persecution complex is showing.

I disagree. A person does not have to decide which god or which religion to come to the conclusion that a higher power caused this all to come about. And it is a logic leap to claim that because humans have come up with multiple versions of God that there must be more than one and for some reason now we have to choose which one. What if there really is only one true God and mankind's attempt to explain him has simply left us with all these multiple "gods" and religions you trot out in every thread like this? I think there is one true God with a multitude of human attempts at explaining him. Sure doesn't mean there is really more than one, and if there isn't more than one, then it is not necessary to choose which one and it doesn't matter where you were born or the predominate religion in the area. Too many people get hung up on the constraints generated by mere human beings. Yeah, humans probably don't have it right. So what? The existence of one God, one creator, one all powerful being, is not dependent on our ability to explain him. Once a person can accept that there is one true God (however, whoever that may be) then it becomes very easy to realize we were created and not just some random accident. Then the only challenge is figuring out which religion, which explanation, which description of God a person is going to gravitate towards. Then, at that point, you are correct, it depends where your were born, how your were raised and what you were exposed to. But none of those human inspired details are the least bit important to come to the conclusion that there must be a higher power, an architect, a God. Even if there is one true God, that doesn't mean that any of man's religions is correct. God's existence doesn't automatically point to a known religion as being true. I think the fact that there are so many religions points to man having a need to create ways to explain things he does not understand. The concept of God is likely not completely understandable to humans thus, its likely no earthly religion is the truth. I wouldn't disagree with that. In fact, surprisingly, I really agree with that. Although I would modify it slightly and say that, logically, some earthly religions must be closer to the truth than others. Not being argumentative...but why?